« Pete Carroll Leaves USC; Will Coach Seattle Seahawks | Main | Because they know what's best for you »

People Power

Wow.

Yesterday, the Republican candidate to replace Ted Kennedy in the US Senate announced he was going to have a "money bomb" event and try to raise half a million dollars in a single day.

That didn't last long.

That goal was quickly reached, so they said "let it ride, baby!" and bumped the goal to $750,000.

When they reached that, they went for a cool mill. Seven figures, baby.

When the clock struck midnight, Scott Brown's war chest was 1.3 million fatter.

There's a bigger story here, though -- even bigger than a Republican taking Ted Kennedy's seat in the bluest of blue states. (Brown, a state senator, is one of the highest-ranking Republicans in Massachusetts. The Democrats hold every single national seat, every single statewide elected office, and over 85% of each house of their legislature.)

No, the big story is who was behind the "money bomb."

When the Democrats want to "drop a bomb" on a race, they have two tested and proven tactics. The first is they send in their "rock stars" -- Obama, Biden (god help them), the Clintons, or the like. The second is they mobilize their armies -- the unions, the "community organizers," and their ilk.

In the Brown case, though, nobody was behind yesterday's massive outpouring of money and support.

Or, more accurately, everybody. An "everybody" who was a part of the army of nobodies.

Somewhere, in the deepest circles of Hell, Karl Marx is gagging. The masses are speaking, the proletariat is indeed rising up against the elitists -- and they're doing it in the name of democracy and capitalism and free markets and freedom.

Oh, there are a few on the Republican side who have similar "star power" as the above-noted Democrats -- the first that comes to mind as Sarah Palin. But let's be blunt -- she's not exactly a mover and shaker in the highest ranks of the GOP. It wouldn't be much of an exaggeration to say that the Republican elites despise her. And besides, she didn't do a damned thing in the Brown case.

I think that might be a hefty element of the left's fear and loathing of the Tea Party Movement. It represents so many things they simply don't know how to deal with.

It has no leaders that they can personalize, isolate, and freeze. It shows graphically that sometimes people can unite and organize for a cause without the "help" of "community organizers" and unions and committees and organizations and the other organs of power they've spent decades building. And it has no interest in morphing into the kind of opposition they've spent decades and zillions of dollars in learning how to fight.

The really interesting question here is how the national leadership of the GOP will react to this phenomenon that is threatening to make them irrelevant. Their current tactic of "ignore it, and maybe it'll go away" isn't exactly working too well. They don't dare try to snuff it; right now it's the only part of the Right that has any real passion and dedication. They can't co-opt it; there are no leaders to seduce, and quite frankly the party leaders don't have a hell of a lot to offer.

The only realistic option for the GOP is to take a bit of wisdom from Tom Clancy's "Debt Of Honor." In that novel, a congressman explains to his lobbyist masters that he simply can't do their bidding this time; the people are too outraged over circumstances. To paraphrase, when the people are stampeding in one direction, the politician's choices are rather stark: stand still and be abandoned; try to move against the tide and be crushed; or run with the crowd and hope like hell to be near enough to the front to claim some kind of leadership role.

Right now, the national GOP is taking the first option, and watching as the crowds leave them in the dust. "They'll be back," they're telling themselves. "They need us and our money and our expertise and our organization and our respectability. They'll be back."

It's how I imagine the British nobility talked about those irksome Colonies about 235 years ago.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/37839.

Comments (39)

An "everybody" who was a... (Below threshold)
wolfwalker:

An "everybody" who was a part of the army of nobodies.

Yeah, somebody should write a book about this phenom. Hey, wait a minute...

And bonus points for the gratuitous Clancy reference, even if Debt of Honor did always strike me as a a mix of satire and consie wish-fulfillment, and its sequel even more so.

Not only is the GOP standin... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

Not only is the GOP standing still, but they have their fingers in their ears shouting LA-LA-LA-LA! The Democrats are feeling uneasy and it shows, the GOP is still too damn dumb to realize what's going on.

Let's hope that Brown (and others in the works) understand fully that these donations come with an explicit demand to NEVER forget who their bosses are.

Right now, the nat... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Right now, the national GOP is taking the first option, and watching as the crowds leave them in the dust. "They'll be back," they're telling themselves. "They need us and our money and our expertise and our organization and our respectability. They'll be back."

Of course they'll be back or they'll find Democrats winning elections again and again. That's why they are supporting the Republican candidate and not repeating the disastrous 3rd party mistake. The GOP only needs to do three things. Raise money, produce genuine conservative candidates with an emphasis on fiscal rather than social conservatism, and prevent libertarians from hijacking the Tea Party movement. Ok, there's one more thing the GOP has to do, which is to realize they only needs to do the three things I just listed, and that's likely the hardest thing to do on the list.

If I read my Democrat playb... (Below threshold)
bobdog:

If I read my Democrat playbook correctly, it's about time for some "shocking scandal" in the news or a vicious rumor campaign involving Scott Brown in the next couple of weeks.

Obama did it twice in his career, with Axelrod pulling the strings, to run unopposed in two elections. Palin got the big scandal about her wardrobe and an unrelenting string of concocted ethics complaints. Mark Kirk, running for Obama's soon-to-be-vacant Senate seat now being warmed by Roland Burris, is currently fighting a vicious rumor campaign that he is secretly gay. And that's just the examples I can think of off the top of my head. It's become a regular feature of the election landscape. Democratic politicians will stop at nothing to keep feeding at the trough.

And if the election is even remotely close, expect a contested election, with recount after recount, lost ballots and lawsuit after lawsuit until the count "comes out right" like it did for Stewart Smalley in Minnesota.

So don't be surprised when there's a major breaking news story about Brown soon. It's pretty bloody likely. The charges will all be bullshit, but they only have to stand up in the media until the election's over. Note that Blagojevich is still awaiting trial, and charges against Rangel and Murtha will likely never be followed up.

It's the Chicago way. The only way Brown wins is if his margin of victory is too big to steal. If that happens, another seat will be stolen somewhere else while nobody's looking. Or Universal Suffrage will get railroaded through in the nick of time to grab the votes of millions of illegal aliens lured in by promises of amnesty, liar mortgages and free healthcare. It's the Big Rock Candy Mountain if you vote for us, deportation and grinding poverty if you don't.

Call me cynical if you want to, but I find myself running out of confidence in our elections process.

Maybe I'm wrong, but maybe it's because I'm from Chicago.

To <a href="http://sportsil... (Below threshold)

To paraphrase Houston Oilers coach Bum Phillips:

Last time, Doug Hoffman was knocking on the door.

This time, Scott Brown is pounding on the door.

Next time the GOP just might kick that son-of-a-bitch in.

Actually I think that Brown's "It's not Kennedy's seat, it's the people's seat" remark is probably what pushed him over the top, with respect to fundraising.

With the exception of rich white Northeastern liberals and Hollywood star-worshipper types, the rest of us live in a post-Kennedy world. Even though the Kennedys still hold a fair amount of power in Massachusetts, the truth is that successive generations of the family have irreparably tarnished and diluted its wide-spread influence. For that, we can all be thankful.

Marc I don't think the Repu... (Below threshold)
Deke:

Marc I don't think the Repubs. have to worry about a 3rd party, what the entrenched leadership has to worry about, and I think a side focus of the article, is a supplanting.

The Republican party was formed as they supplanted the inefectual Whigs, who with the death of Daniel Webster, were left leaderless and refused to deal head on and present a clear oposition to the expansion of slavery.

Were at that type of cross-roads now within America. The base of the party is showing a CLEAR unwillingness to follow the GOP leadership plan of big tent, limp-wristed, country club, just get back power, Republicanism. I think this can be illustrated in their total rejection of the establishments choices of Scuzzie in NY and Crist in Florida. The base is told time and time again we have to have this or that if we want to "win" yet the people are speaking out and saying, "Whether we win or lose we're gonna do it with someone who shares our values!"

The battle is internal and in the end will come down to will the Republicans be run by Mavericks, Snowflakes and Tanning Booths or by Rogues, Pitbulls and Hard chargers, it appears the momentum is behind the latter I just hope the former has the sense to get on board or get the hell out of the way.

The really interesting q... (Below threshold)
Roy:

The really interesting question here is how the national leadership of the GOP will react to this phenomenon that is threatening to make them irrelevant.

Too late, that already happened last summer with the town hall stuff.

Jay Tea:Maybe I'm ... (Below threshold)
James H:

Jay Tea:

Maybe I'm projecting my own feelings here, but I don't think the current mood is a rebellion against liberals per se. Rather, I think we're seeing a lot of independent voters pissed off with both sides. They didn't like Republicans in the latter Bush years, so they gave Congress and the White House to the Democrats. Now, they don't like what the Democrats are doing, so they're moving the other way.

JH "..but I don't think the... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

JH "..but I don't think the current mood is a rebellion against liberals per se. Rather, I think we're seeing a lot of independent voters pissed off with both sides. "

They are pissed at both sides. And both sides are 'liberals'.
Sure, one side is hard liberal and the other is liberal-lite.

The govt grows larger and the govt spends more and more and more with BOTH parties lately.

Stop.Spending.So.Much.Money. - That is the message.

"They need us and our money... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"They need us and our money"

I've got news for Michael Steele and the rest of the Republicans. NO, YOU NEED OUR MONEY! AND YOU DIDN'T GET IT LAST ELECTION CYCLE. SO MICHAEL, WHO NEEDS WHO?

The problem is political en... (Below threshold)
Eric:

The problem is political entrenchment. The politicians need bring pork to their districts to get reelected. The politicians need the lobbyists to get money to be re-elected. The politicians need to make deals with other politicians ultimately to get reelected. Do we see a pattern here?

I feel that the most important fix for this country is term limits for Congress. The President is term limited, it's time to do the same with Congress.

"Rather, I think we're s... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

"Rather, I think we're seeing a lot of independent voters pissed off with both sides."

AND a lot of republicans who have watched their party drift leftwards for the past couple decades who only voted for the Republican because the alternative was unthinkable. A lot of these Republicans are feeling empowered for the first time in a long time to get behind a candidate of their choosing rather than what the GOP has chosen for them.

"I feel that the most impor... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

"I feel that the most important fix for this country is term limits for Congress. The President is term limited, it's time to do the same with Congress."

Yep.
Also, once they are out of Congress, they can't work for a lobbyist for X number of years.
Also, no retirement plan for Congressmen. They are more than welcome to set up a 401k or IRA, but no lifetime defined benefit plan.

Like the vaunted (semi-GOP)... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Like the vaunted (semi-GOP) Tea Party movement, the (DNC) Money Bomb concept is a page taken directly from the Ron Paul Revolution grassroots campaign, yet Jay Tea finds himself in mental peregrinations within the published mind of noted tween author Tom Clancy.

What is it about a prophet not honored in his own house and town?

On topic:<a href="... (Below threshold)
bryanD:
What is it about a... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
What is it about a prophet not honored in his own house and town?

But it's not Ron Paul's own party. Many remember Paul's decision to leave the Republican Party and join the Libertarian Party. So why did he come back? Likely because he figured out that the Libertarian Party is a dead end. Thing is, if he was any kind of prophet or even bright he would have figured that out before leaving the Republican Party. To remove Democrats from power while there's still something left of the nation to save require all conservatives to join forces and Ron Paul is a divider not a uniter.

"But it's not Ron Paul's ow... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

"But it's not Ron Paul's own party."-ml

Right. If it were it might have 1 oz of credibility left. Ron Paul's past and recent votes and positions are the Lost Chord that the Republican party is working it's fret board over.

(And they know it. But they can't admit it.
It would just be so...painful.
Plus, the neocons wouldn't approve.)

From TARP to fiscal responsibility to civil liberties issues, Paul is 100% correct, hence the "Dr. No" label. Belatedly, now that the Dems are in charge(!), Republicans in Congress are desperate enough to rush in co-sponsoring Paul's Federal Reserve audit and accountability bills. Of course, Dems being in charge, I suspect the GOP conversion is so much snake oil salemanship for the parched suckers of Last Week, Arizona, population Don't Ask.

"Thing is, if he was any kind of prophet or even bright he would have figured that out before leaving the Republican Party"-ml

Anyone with eyes could see the snake eggs in the bird nest in 1988. Today's Republican reputation wasn't whipped up like Ovaltine. And Paul wasn't prisoner to any political grubstake in the House office building. Note that he didn't hedge his bets by running for his incumbent seat. And note that when he decided a few years later, to run again, he won handily in a very Republican district of Houston.

Let's put it in the here and now. Paul's prescient disgust is the GOP rank-and-files' disgust now. Better late than never. And yet...everyone seems to asking Where is Someone with Credibility???

Ron Paul.

Use the primaries where you... (Below threshold)
serfer62:

Use the primaries where your vote is the strongest to eliminate the incumbent no matter the party.
A newbie is more propeople then the entrenched.
Of course donate direct to the candidate of your convictions no matter how little...its also a national vore.

From TARP to fisca... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
From TARP to fiscal responsibility to civil liberties issues, Paul is 100% correct, hence the "Dr. No" label.

And on abortion Paul is pro-choice or he lied to Libertarians. Paul is for legalizing all drugs or he lied to Libertarians. Paul is for abolishing the FDA or he lied to Libertarians. Paul is for abolishing the SEC or he lied to Libertarians. Paul is not only for a Federal Reserve audit and accountability bill, but abolishment of the Federal Reserve or he lied to Libertarians. Paul is for abolishing Social Security and Medicare or he lied to Libertarians. The list goes on and on.

Let's put it in the here and now. Paul's prescient disgust is the GOP rank-and-files' disgust now. Better late than never. And yet...everyone seems to asking Where is Someone with Credibility???

Paul would have zero credibility on a national platform once people are forced to face the lunacy Paul once embraced as his own. Once brought to light with some TV ads liberals would have nothing to do with Paul's fiscal positions and conservatives would have nothing to do with Paul's social positions. Let Paul explain when and why he changed his position on Libertarian social issues or let him go back to the Libertarian party, or better yet, Paul should join the Democrats.

It's funny, mac lorry. Your... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

It's funny, mac lorry. Your inclination is to second the Wizbang board with its tocsins to anathematize the domestic enemies of Sam Goldwyn's America, but on issue specifics, Wizbang is a liberal board with a highly relativistic/ liberal-interventionist moral(?) center.

The frantic mind-meld attempt with the Libertarians in your second paragraph is appreciated by volunteer busybodies everywhere.


Is it just me, but is Bryan... (Below threshold)

Is it just me, but is BryanD even more incoherent and rambling than usual?

I knew he was nuts, but he's a PaulBot?

Sometimes I wonder if BryanD wakes up in the morning and tosses a dart at a dartboard to decide just what kind of nutjob he's going to be each day...

J.

Wizbang is a liber... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Wizbang is a liberal board with a highly relativistic/ liberal-interventionist moral(?) center.

Spoken like a true Libertarian loon who thinks defending the unborn is somehow a highly relativistic/ liberal-interventionist moral.

The frantic mind-meld attempt with the Libertarians in your second paragraph is appreciated by volunteer busybodies everywhere.

No need for a mind-meld. All you need to do is read and understand the Libertarian political philosophy to conclude it's antithetical to the technologically advanced and complex globalized social economic world we live in. Libertarians are 200 years behind the times and one only needs scratch the surface to understand that. Maybe you should give it a try and stop worshiping Ron Paul.

"Spoken like a true Liberta... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

"Spoken like a true Libertarian loon..."-ml

I'm a registered Republican though an independent voter; hopefully a bane of Republican and Democratic (especially Republican) statists and chickenhawks.

I will admit to voting in protest for Obama because McCain's sell-out on the POW-MIA issue in hearings in 1993 was treasonous on its face, and because Oklahoma allows no write-ins and no third party candidate approached the artificial threshold erected by the Republicratic establishment.

"...who thinks defending the unborn is somehow a highly relativistic/ liberal-interventionist moral.-ml

Frenetic mischaracterization. I'm pro-life. (How Obama, you say? See Reagan mandate. See late Republican power monopoly, 2001-2006. The pro-life cause celebre is a Republican sop, by the evidence.)

"Maybe you should give it a try and stop worshiping Ron Paul."-ml

Tut-tut. But the personality cult of Cheney McBush is the main entertainment draw here, speaking for myself.
Oh, the twists and perilous sheer-edge turns.
It's like the Daily Worker in the 1940s.

"I knew he was nuts, but he's a PaulBot?"-jt

My favorite American politician of all time is probably Robert LaFollette. And Burton Wheeler. And Ron Paul. And Benjamin Franklin.
I have prohibitive favorites further back, but most are tainted by anti-Indian and anti-black sentiments that warrant the ol' asterisk, relegating them to Issue favorites insted of All-Around.

"Is it just me, but is BryanD even more incoherent and rambling than usual..."-jt

Probably. It's osmotic. Tacitus, Histories. Trying to synchronize the calendric consulships with the calends and ides of months to determine a date to events in an objective way relative to the eclesial calender (b.c./a.d.), multiplied by Tacitus' florid writing style.

Is "malinfluenced" a word? It is now.
(c)bryanD



I'm a registered R... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
I'm a registered Republican though an independent voter. . . I will admit to voting in protest for Obama. . . Tut-tut. But the personality cult of Cheney McBush is the main entertainment draw here, speaking for myself.

I figured as much, and I have said nothing would please liberals more than seeing Ron Paul Libertarian loons hijack the Tea Party movement and take it the 3rd party route. You've shown you are one of those liberals pretending to be a Republican and proselytizing for Ron Paul in hopes of splitting the conservative vote. We're on to you.

I know from your comments on another thread that up to about two days ago you didn't know there was such a thing as Political Philosophy, so it's unlikely you've read about the Libertarian Political Philosophy, so here's a link to a peer-reviewed scholarly source. If you take the time to study it you may come to understand why it was a thing of the past before it existed as a coherent philosophy. Then again as a liberal mole you already know that and just act dumb.

Wow. You all really ought t... (Below threshold)
Robin Marie:

Wow. You all really ought to get out more.

Let me tell you what is happening surrounding the tea party.

The libertarians are pitching a fit saying the republicans are trying to steal it away from them, and the republicans are worried that the libertarians want to claim it as their own. They are both claiming they started it and the other is stealing.

If there are any real "over all" leaders in the movement, they are our founding fathers. The number one buzzword is "Constitution," followed with phrases, "Tenth Amendment," "State Sovereignty," "Free Market," "Limited Government," Enumerated Powers," "Personal liberty," and so on.

People are NOT rallying around Ron Paul or the Republican party, and not even "against" the Democrats specifically. We the people are sick of the political machines. We are looking for representatives who stand for liberty.

Liberty... That means not enslaving us with laws that govern the details our personal lives, or with debt. It means we don't want to work until June or July for Uncle Sam.

I sent money into Scott Brown, not because he is a republican, (he may even be a baby rino, and I don't like rinos.) I supported him financially and with many, many tweets and prayers, because he believes in preserving our liberty.

Sheesh, the right wants to limit the liberties of those on the left, and the left wants to limit those of the right. Religion, guns, gay marriage, what you drive, the words you use... Make people do this and stop that. Cant we all just agree to limit the governments intrusion into our lives.

It use to be Left vs Right. It is becoming Freedom vs Tyranny. Congress, the Senate, and the Presidents on both sides have abused and increased their power far beyond the scope originally delegated to them.

You talk about pork and bribes... The Founding Fathers used the phrase "General Welfare of the States" to prevent that. Back then the emphasis was on "General." No bill could benefit any of the states over the others. Neither could they benefit some industries or people unequally. Imagine if that still applied.

Before you accuse me of being a libertarian, let me tell you, I agree with a lot of their domestic policies, but not all, and I would NEVER vote Ron Paul for President.

The way I see it, if we abide by our constitution, The federal government would be focusing on foreign or external matters, and leave most of the internal matters to the States and local governments. The states would be protecting our liberties from the Feds, and the Feds would be protecting them from being abused by the states. Things like health care, and even social security, would be up to the voters in each state to decide on how to handle it.

As far as the regulating boards go, if I wanted an FDA approved product I would look for their seal of approval, but I should have the freedom to buy an unlabeled product for personal use, if it doesn't endanger the public. Same with banks. People trusted these big banks because the Government makes us believe we can blindly choose who we bank with. Personal responsibility and freedom in choosing who we do business has been given over to the nanny state. Forget it. Let me buy my beef from a farmer I can trust, and choose where my children will go to school etc. I don't need a nanny's stamp of approval. Turns out it is no good anyway. Just a load of false security.

The libertarians a... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
The libertarians are pitching a fit saying the republicans are trying to steal it away from them, and the republicans are worried that the libertarians want to claim it as their own. They are both claiming they started it and the other is stealing.

Being libertarians make up 15% of voters at best it's obvious the Tea Party movement is made up mostly of conservatives, independents, and a few liberals. The issue from which the Tea Party movement was born is the runaway deficit spending of the Obama administration and the higher taxes that must follow. If the Tea Party movement were about all these other issues like State Sovereignty, Free Market, Limited Government, Enumerated Powers, and Personal liberty the Tea Party movement would have started long ago. That didn't happen, but seeing an opportunity to hitch there defunct wagon to a moving train libertarians show up and try to claim the Tea Party movement as their own.

What you and every other rational conservative needs to understand is that nothing will derail the Tea Party movement quicker than it being hijacked by libertarians to promote their dead end philosophy.

People are NOT rallying around Ron Paul or the Republican party, and not even "against" the Democrats specifically. We the people are sick of the political machines. We are looking for representatives who stand for liberty.

Speak for yourself. Rational conservatives and independents want to work within the system to elect fiscal conservatives. By reducing spending you reduce taxes and force a more limited government. As soon as you take the focus off such specific goals you lose all hope of having any impact at all. Waste your own vote by don't ask me to waste mine.

Liberty... That means not enslaving us with laws that govern the details our personal lives, or with debt. It means we don't want to work until June or July for Uncle Sam.

Under a libertarian government there would be few preemptive laws, and thus, to be libertarian is to be pro-choice. It also means there are no laws against drug use, firearms, explosives, poisons or biological agents to name a few. It's lunacy to believe economically successful people would be safe in such an environment. Sure, the rich can lock themselves away behind high walls patrolled by armed guards, but rather than liberty they'll come to realize they are the ones in prison.

Outside such communities you can expect gangs high on Crystal Meth and armed with full auto assault weapons and military grade explosive to come knocking on your door to sell you protection, which would be a legal enterprise, or if you don't pay enough maybe they would have their way with you and your family. Of course there's nothing to prevent a competitive gang from making you the same offer the next day, that is unless the first gang goes to war for you. Under a libertarian government an individual can have any weapon the government can have, it's only a matter of cost, so these gang on gang conflicts will be real wars. If you want to get a taste of what it would be like to live under a libertarian government go to Somalia.

As far as the regulating boards go, if I wanted an FDA approved product I would look for their seal of approval, but I should have the freedom to buy an unlabeled product for personal use, if it doesn't endanger the public.

You statement is irrational. The purpose of the FDA is to make sure drugs don't endanger the public either directly or by being ineffective against the disease they are labeled to treat. As a consumer you would have no scientifically valid means of knowing what drugs endanger the public. Given the cost and time it takes to get FDA approval there would be few if any drugs on the market that would have such approval. We would be back the snake oil days when people drank potions that contained radium, at least until their jaw dropped off. What's worse is that under a libertarian government there would be no licensing requirement for doctors. Sure your survivors could sue them for malpractice, but I don't find that comforting, do you?

People trusted these big banks because the Government makes us believe we can blindly choose who we bank with.

No one has lost a dime of any money that had on deposit in any bank since the FDIC went into effect unless they had more on deposit than the maximum covered by FDIC, but of course people have the LIBERTY to be stupid.

People lost money in the so-called free market because inventive folks devised securities so complex that not even the rating firms understood the risks and rated what turned out to be toxic mortgages as "investment grade", and it was that bogus rating that pulled in money from all around the world, and it was that flow of money that produce more toxic mortgages. Yes, the government had a hand in creating the problem by insuring some subprime mortgages, but the bigger part of the mess was caused by Wall Street. Without regulation we'll be right back to the Wall Street of 1929.

Forget it. Let me buy my beef from a farmer I can trust.

Fine if all you want to eat is what's grown locally and in season. As for me I like fresh fruits and vegetables year around. I also like exotic fruits like bananas and oranges and foods that contain chocolate. Of course 230 years ago people weren't faced with such choices.

and choose where my children will go to school etc.

You can do that now, unless of course, you want the government to pay for their school. Under a libertarian government you would lose that choice.

Obviously you haven't thought much about what it would mean to live under a libertarian government, so do us the favor of educate yourself before you promote these obsolete ideas.

"" ... The masses are speak... (Below threshold)

"" ... The masses are speaking, the proletariat is indeed rising up against the elitists -- and they're doing it in the name of democracy and capitalism and free markets and freedom ... ""

TRANSLATION:

WE SOVEREIGN AMERICANS are addressing our hired servants and are indeed projecting our sovereignty upon the self-anointed, self-appointed and wannabe-self-perpetuating "elitists." And WE are doing it in the name of OUR BELOVED FRATERNAL REPUBLIC and of FRee-Market Capitalism and of our GOD-GIVEN INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY!

But are the "Democratic" potty's recidivist and treasonous fascists even listening ?

WE SOVEREIGN AMERI... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
WE SOVEREIGN AMERICANS are addressing our hired servants and are indeed projecting our sovereignty upon the self-anointed, self-appointed and wannabe-self-perpetuating "elitists." And WE are doing it in the name of OUR BELOVED FRATERNAL REPUBLIC and of FRee-Market Capitalism and of our GOD-GIVEN INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY!

And all this time I thought the Tea Party movement was about working within the Constitution. If so, then American individuals are not sovereign. Government by consent of the governed means individuals are subjects. Only the majority of individuals acting in unison is sovereign. That means promoting issues that the majority of voters will support. Stopping runaways deficit spending and the taxes that must follow is an issue the majority of voters will support, but as soon as you inject Libertarian dogma you lose 85% of the voters, and thus, you insure continued rule by big government liberals. Is that what you want?

Mac Lorry's #26 so misrepre... (Below threshold)

Mac Lorry's #26 so misrepresents libertarianism (not to be confused with the quaint practices of the party by that name (AKA The Libertine potty) as to risk being being mistaken for an attempted synopsis of several chapters of an updated reprint of the 1970s' The Clichés of Socialism. (http://www.archive.org/stream/clichsofsocial00vari/clichsofsocial00vari_djvu.txt)

American Libertarianism wants nothing more nor less than that the government's activities be strictly limited by the spirit of the American Declaration of Independence and to those enumerated powers permitted it by the United States' Constitution.

There would be no roaming gangs of boogy-men, of straw men nor other meth heads when the local police forces and judiciaries of the voluntarily-incorporated town and district councils of free men saw to their responsibilities to rigorously police the Law.

Schools would be local and voluntary and would, like everything else, operate for the only pure motive there has ever been or will ever be: PROFIT! And the choices among them and among doctors and among every other kind of tradesman and service would be too many to count!

And drug companies would be no more inclined to poison and kill their customers in a free and Constitutionally regulated society than would airlines profit from bringing their aeroplanes to a sudden halt against the sides of mountains and/or otherwise sticking their customers into the ground.

No-one, or so you say, has lost money since the invention of the FDIC and the various other as-fraudulent Frankensteinian facsimile Ponzi-Scheme creations of the so-richly Soviet-agent-larded "administration" of the traitor, Roosevelt and of the various other evil-doers who've followed in his fascissocialist footsteps??

Then how will you set about explaining the more than One Hundred and Ten Trillion Dollars of already long-past-due feral-gummint debt and/or of unfunded liabilities that have accrued since the 1930s?

Not "lost a Dime??"

That's true.

Not a dime.

But, thanks to all of the "help" extended us by the vast DC-based recidivist and treasonous criminal enterprises that include the feral gummint and its every agency, bureau and department, EVERY last American has so far lost Three Hundred and Sixty-Six Thousand-odd Dollars.

And we are counting!

The issue from wh... (Below threshold)
Robin Marie:
The issue from which the Tea Party movement was born is the runaway deficit spending of the Obama administration and the higher taxes that must follow. If the Tea Party movement were about all these other issues like State Sovereignty, Free Market, Limited Government, Enumerated Powers, and Personal liberty the Tea Party movement would have started long ago.

No, Obama just turned up the heat, and the frog that was simmering to death for the past few generations has finally had enough. Obama and the nuts in congress have woken the sleeping giant. The sooner the Republican party realizes this, the better. The republicans had the majority and got it promising term limits for one thing, and never followed through once in power. That is just one example.

Under a libertarian government there would be few preemptive laws, and thus, to be libertarian is to be pro-choice. It also means there are no laws against drug use, firearms, explosives, poisons or biological agents to name a few. It's lunacy to believe economically successful people would be safe in such an environment.

Wrong. I hate to sound like I am defending libertarianism, because Ron Paul is a nut, but you really do not understand what I was saying. I take it as my lack in communicating skills and your auto defences against libertarianism. (One, I never mentioned abortion. The constitution already states the right to life. Personally I believe Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional. So if we are going to argue let's do it over our disagreements and set this one aside.) So... I NEVER said there should be NO laws against guns, drugs, gay marriage, education, social services and aid, etc. What I was try to convey is that the people have more power to influence these laws according to their convictions at the local and state levels. If Californians want to bankrupt themselves so be it. If Texans want to deny children of illegals a free state education let them. Let NYC or the state of NY decide if they want universal health care.

People who want the laws passed can live under them and bare the financial burdens/freedoms and criminal influences/safety that go with/without them. More powers, decisions, and tax money to back them, need to be returned to the States.

To see how some of this would work let's look at smoking. The surgeon general has required labels of warning. Yet I have been left free to smoke to death if I choose. Recently state and local laws are putting limits on the "smokers right" to endanger the lives of others in some public places. My rights end where they other's begin. As a non-smoker, I should not have to sit in a jury room, stand in line for my drivers license, etc, and inhale cigarette smoke. Likewise, alcohol consumption in the privacy of my home is my right, but I do not have the right to get in a car under the influence. (People still do it because the laws, (state and local,) though getting tougher, are still not tough enough.)What makes people think that if the federal government was to drop laws on drug use, that the states would not have their own put into effect?


It is crazy that we send our money to DC to be sent back to our states with regulations on how to spend it placed on us by representatives of other states.

Everyone one is always focused on federal elections and legislation. That is because we have centralized the power there against all the warnings of our forefathers. My federal representatives are being distracted by health-care legislation when they should be free to focus on our national security.

The founders stated that the federal government has certain areas of authority and the rest remains with the people and the states. If we want to give them more power, do it with a constitutional amendment requiring a large majority of the people. One party should not be able to make "changes in the fundamentals of America" through congressional legislation. The founders never meant to give that much power to the "party in charge." It takes years to get a constitutional amendment passed, that safeguards the people of our republic from hasty decisions by the party in charge.

No one has lost a... (Below threshold)
Robin Marie:
No one has lost a dime of any money that had on deposit in any bank since the FDIC went into effect

Excuse me, but we have lost billions! My tax money is being used to support banks and industries which I am not invested in. Banks are only "to big to fail" because we have been told the government has our backs. If these banks would have failed, the money in the FDIC would not have covered our all our deposits.

As far as schools go, look at the mess! I am supporting the US dept of Education with my tax money and it is being directed by teachers unions. They are now pushing for federal curriculum, taking control out of the states and local governments. Again, I am sending money out of my state to be sent back in with regulations I have little influence over. The quality of education in America is going down and the literacy rate is going up.

How can congress, so removed from the locations, make better decisions for the people in Indiana or Florida, than the State and local governments, where a person is one voice in a thousands, instead of millions. Let the people in Chicago and Illinois who see their mess, deal with it. Let Kentucky deal with theirs. The "one size fits all" is a myth.

Obviously you hav... (Below threshold)
Robin Marie:
Obviously you haven't thought much about what it would mean to live under a libertarian government, so do us the favor of educate yourself before you promote these obsolete ideas.

It is you who do not understand. What we want is for Texas to be free to live under a republican government and California to be free to live under a liberal one. If there is a state that prefers a Libertarian form of government, so be it.

Federally, let us campaign for our what we each believe is right regarding national defence and international trade. Where by the way, I personally am very republican. :)

American... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:


American Libertarianism wants nothing more nor less than that the government's activities be strictly limited by the spirit of the American Declaration of Independence and to those enumerated powers permitted it by the United States' Constitution.

You don't know what you are talking about. See the link in post #24 for some actual facts.

There would be no roaming gangs of boogy-men, of straw men nor other meth heads when the local police forces and judiciaries of the voluntarily-incorporated town and district councils of free men saw to their responsibilities to rigorously police the Law

But of course there would be no law against any drugs so it's a fallacy to say "rigorously police the Law". Furthermore, a gang that goes door to door to sell protection is just another private enterprise and it's not anyone's business if they use drugs or not.

Schools would be local and voluntary and would, like everything else, operate for the only pure motive there has ever been or will ever be: PROFIT!

And we have such schools now. The only difference is that there would be no free option whereby the children of the poor could get an education. Some of these kids will grow up and come to your door selling protection.

And drug companies would be no more inclined to poison and kill their customers in a free and Constitutionally regulated society than would airlines profit from bringing their aeroplanes to a sudden halt against the sides of mountains and/or otherwise sticking their customers into the ground.

The difference is that consumers can know about airplane crashes, but not about ineffective or dangerous drugs. It takes long and expensive scientific studies to make such determinations. Without knowledge the free market fails, it's that simple.

No-one, or so you say, has lost money since the invention of the FDIC and the various other as-fraudulent Frankensteinian facsimile Ponzi-Scheme creations of the so-richly Soviet-agent-larded "administration" of the traitor, Roosevelt and of the various other evil-doers who've followed in his fascissocialist footsteps??

I never said that. Go back and look at what I actually wrote. The rest of your screed has nothing to do with what I actually wrote.

No, Obama just tur... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
No, Obama just turned up the heat, and the frog that was simmering to death for the past few generations has finally had enough. Obama and the nuts in congress have woken the sleeping giant.

Wishful thinking that will lead to nothing unless it's directed to a few focused issues the majority of voters can all support. That sure as heck doesn't include the libertarian dogma that has never gotten the support of more than 15% of the voting public.

The republicans had the majority and got it promising term limits for one thing, and never followed through once in power. That is just one example.

And did you know term limits were declared unconstitutional in states that passed them? The reason the US President is limited to two full terms is because that limit was added to the Constitution.

I NEVER said there should be NO laws against guns, drugs, gay marriage, education, social services and aid, etc.

But you did say "Liberty... That means not enslaving us with laws that govern the details our personal lives, or with debt." So you have some set of laws that govern the details our personal lives that you oppose, but your list may not be the same as my list. There has to be a system to resolve those differences between people and over time that system produces what we have now.

People who want the laws passed can live under them and bare the financial burdens/freedoms and criminal influences/safety that go with/without them. More powers, decisions, and tax money to back them, need to be returned to the States.

I agree that the Federal government has gotten into things it should leave to the states such as education.

What makes people think that if the federal government was to drop laws on drug use, that the states would not have their own put into effect?

Certainly states could pass laws against drugs, but it's unlikely they would have the ability to enforce them. Most drug enforcement is in interdiction and no state is going to be in South America fighting the drug cartels as the DEA does now, or on the open sea catching smugglers.

One party should not be able to make "changes in the fundamentals of America" through congressional legislation. The founders never meant to give that much power to the "party in charge."

I agree, but also I know that anything the Democrats do, other than ratify a treaty, can be undone by Republicans if they can take back control of the government by 2012. Anything that detracts from that goal only guarantees Democrats will remain in power. Is that what you want?

Excuse me, but we ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Excuse me, but we have lost billions! My tax money is being used to support banks and industries which I am not invested in. Banks are only "to big to fail" because we have been told the government has our backs. If these banks would have failed, the money in the FDIC would not have covered our all our deposits.

My comment was about money people had deposited in banks, not the entire housing bubble fiasco and the money spent to keep the financial system from collapsing. Had the banks been allowed to fail the government would have had a legal obligation to fund FDIC. It wouldn't have been called TARP, but it would have cost even more and we would have a failed economy to boot. Bush didn't like the idea of TARP, but he understood the consequences of doing nothing were even higher.

As far as schools go, look at the mess! I am supporting the US dept of Education with my tax money and it is being directed by teachers unions. They are now pushing for federal curriculum, taking control out of the states and local governments. Again, I am sending money out of my state to be sent back in with regulations I have little influence over. The quality of education in America is going down and the literacy rate is going up.

The answer to that problem is to outlaw unions, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

And did you know ... (Below threshold)
Robin Marie:
And did you know term limits were declared unconstitutional in states that passed them? The reason the US President is limited to two full terms is because that limit was added to the Constitution.

Right, we need a constitutional amendment limiting the terms.


I agree, but also I know that anything the Democrats do, other than ratify a treaty, can be undone by Republicans if they can take back control of the government by 2012. Anything that detracts from that goal only guarantees Democrats will remain in power. Is that what you want?

And then the Democrats can just change it back again. Uncertainty is bad for the economy. A business and it's investors needs to be able to plan for the future. Right now the banks are hardly lending, but you also have business that could borrow, not borrowing. Consummers need to be able to plan too. Everyone is holding off on risks and battening down the hatches until they see if the freaken Obama polocies of HC and Crap and Tax go through. Even if they don't go through this time, they might in the near future.

We need a "rule of Law" that is more stable. The Consitution is it, if we would respect it. After what the Obama administration has done to GM stock holders and many dealership owners... People are becoming convinced that we are subject to "the rule of whim." Nothing is safe.

Of course I do not want the Democrats to remain in power. I just hope that the republican establishment realizes that they are the ones who are going to have to come to grips with the growing sentiment that is fueling the Tea Parties. The question is, do the Republican Elites want the Democrats to stay in power?

And then the Democ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
And then the Democrats can just change it back again.

Only if the voters allow it. Unless you are willing to go to war to change our form of government, then that's what we are stuck with. The idea that the Constitution is something different than what we currently have fails to acknowledge that according to the Constitution the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it says.

I just hope that the republican establishment realizes that they are the ones who are going to have to come to grips with the growing sentiment that is fueling the Tea Parties.

The Republicans party will follow where Republican voters want it to go. If Tea Partiers want to elect conservative candidates then they must work within the Republican Party. Any 3rd party growth means conservatives forfeit elections to liberal candidates. It really is that simple.

If the Tea Party ... (Below threshold)
Robin Marie:
If the Tea Party movement were about all these other issues like State Sovereignty, Free Market, Limited Government, Enumerated Powers, and Personal liberty the Tea Party movement...

Not to argue, but to just note:

It is hard to be a part of a movement that organizes "TEA parties" where demonstrators address each other as "Fellow Patriots," and not look at our history and foundations. The Declaration of Independence has been read at gatherings, and in some gatherings signed by attendees to be sent to congress. (google tea party declaration, while you are at it google tea party constitution too)

Multi millions of pocket size constitutions have been handed out at tea parties, parades, and county fairs. Community and on-line classes on constitutional study are becoming popular.

Note also that the books Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto Sold over 1 Million Copies "Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto lays out a vision for America that is rooted in the Constitution and in the Founding Fathers' vision of strictly limited government and individual self-reliance." ... and the other patriotic books that had sold over a million copies and stayed on the best seller list for months on end.

By the way, did you know that "state sovereignty resolutions" have been submitted in at least 21 states? - serving "notice and demand" to the Federal Government to "cease and desist any and all activities outside the scope of their constitutionally-delegated powers."

Listen for the buzz words "Common Sense," (the tile of a book write by Thomas Paine before the revolution and used as a title again by Glen Beck. Palin used them the other night on Fox. Even republicans who don't care for these personalities that the TEA Party Patriots love, should at least want to know what other issues besides taxes are fueling this movement. Even if they don't want to embrace them, they best not ignore these issues.

Only if the vo... (Below threshold)
Robin Marie:

Only if the voters allow it. Unless you are willing to go to war to change our form of government, then that's what we are stuck with. The idea that the Constitution is something different than what we currently have fails to acknowledge that according to the Constitution the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it says.

We can change it one amendment at a time if we wish. We may need to amend it to clarify it, but I doubt many, except Obama and his socialist advocates, want to change it's foundation.

There is talk of bringing a case against the way the court is using "case law" instead of the original document to rule on current cases. I am not sure how that would be submitted.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy